the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise with my chairman, mr. i rise with my chairman, the chairman of the arms services committee, i join with my colleagues from the foreign affairs committee, colleagues from the armed services committee, in opposition to this resolution. i am very disappointed that the house democratic leadership would allow this resolution to come to the floor at this time for a vote. one only has to look at the headlines to note that our military forces are making progress in their offensive against the taliban insurgents in helmand province. even as they face improvised explosive devices and a skeptical afghan population, the kucinich resolution does nothing

to woodman's the efforts of our commanders and troops as they work side by side with their afghan and coalition partners. representative kucinich's representative is -- amendment would mandate to withdraw all of all combat troops from afghanistan by the end of 2010. why consider this resolution now? why second-guess the commander- in-chief says soon after the announcement of a new strategy? afghanistan. it was the epicenter of where al qaeda planned and launched the 9/11 attacks against innocent americans. the president recommitted the united states to defeating al qaeda and the taliban and authorized the deployment of 30,000 additional u.s. forces. a portion of those forces have arrived and others are ready to deploy. like most republicans, i support the president's decision to surge in afghanistan. i believe that with additional

forces, combined with giving general mcchrystal the time, space and resources he needs we can win this conflict. we do not have a choice. we must defeat al qaeda and the taliban. this means taking all necessary steps to ensure al qaeda does not have a sant wear in -- sanctuary in afghanistan or pakistan. at the end of last year i hoped that the war debate in this country ended and we would give a chance for this strategy to work, we would give a chance for those soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors who have been sent there to carry out their mission, to be successful. i had hoped as a nation we could move toward a place of action. we wouldn't be in a position of second guessing before we've even had a chance to complete that mission. during the debate last year, no one said that it was going to be easy. the current operation in afghanistan has been successful, but has not come without challenges.

however, as we stand here today, the afghan flag is flying in marja city's center, the taliban flag has been removed. this lone flag sends a clear message to afghans, that the central government is committed to people there, that we're not going to cut and run, we're going to be with them and help successfully conclude this mission so that they can finally have peace. some have compared our efforts there to russians or others in the past and have talked about the defeat of other nations in this country. we're not there to take over this country. we're there to provide them freedom. that's why we're going to be successful. however, this debate is not being conducted in a vacuum. our troops are listening. our allies are listening. the taliban and al qaeda also are listening. and, finally, the afghan people are listening. this resolution sends the

message, pay no attention to the flag over there. america cannot be trusted to uphold its own values and commitments. i'll be attending a funeral saturday. each of us, i'm sure here, have had to perform that duty. it's not one i'm looking forward to. i've attended several in the past. but at this point for me to go to that funeral and tell them that their son, sergeant galleg, lost his life over an effort that we're going to cut and run from is something i cannot do. mr. speaker, i want to send a clear message to the afghan people and government that our coalition partners, our military men and women, this congress, believes in you. we support you, we honor your dedication and your sacrifice. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: you know, i just want to say that when -- you can talk about how the democratic leadership is bringing this up at a time that there is obviously a surge about to begin , but why question the timeliness of the debate when in fact my friend in the minority, their party didn't bring this up for eight years of debate? eight years. i mean, i think it's timely. that's the whole point. i want to thank mr. poe of texas. i yield the gentleman five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extends my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paul: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this resolution. i thank the gentleman from ohio for bringing this issue up. it is late. this war started 10 years ago, it's time we talked about it.

it was said earlier on, it is hard to quit a war, and we shouldn't be quitting. but i tell you what the real problem is, it's too easy to start a war, it's too easy to get involved and that is our problem. the founders of this country tried very hard to prevent this kind of a dilemma that we're in now, getting involved in no-win wars and nobody knowing exactly who the enemy is. the war was started and justified by quoting and using the war powers resolution written in 1973. that was written after the fiasco of vietnam to try to prevent the problems of slipping into war. yet that resolution in itself was unconstitutional because it literally legalized war for 90 days. so, it was -- it did exactly the opposite, so here we are, the 90-day permission for war, at that time, now it is close to 10

years. i'm afraid that this is a little bit too little, hopefully not too late for us to do something about this. are we going to do it for 10 more years? how long are we going to stay? and the enemy is said to be the taliban. well, the taliban, they certainly don't like us and we don't like them. and the more we kill, the mortal been a we get. but -- the more taliban we get. but i want to quote a line, what the purpose of giving the president the power, which was an illegal transfer of power to the president to pursue war at will. it says, the authorities to authorize the use of united states armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the united states, the taliban didn't launch an attack against the united states, the government of afghanistan didn't launch it. the best evidence is that of those 20 individuals, two of them might have passed through

afghanistan. a lot of the planning was done in germany and spain and the training was done here in the united states. oh, yes. the image is that they all conspired, a small group of people, with bin laden, they made this decision. right now the evidence is not there to prove that. but certainly bin laden was very sympathetic, loved it and wanted to take credit for it. and one of the reasons why he wanted to take credit was that he said it would do three things for what he wanted. first, it would enhance his recruitment efforts for al qaeda and his attack against western powers who have become overly involved in control of the middle east and have had a plan for 20 years to remake the middle east. he also said that if we -- the consequence of 9/11 will be that we are bog the american people down in a no-win war and demoralize the people.

and they're working on it. there's still a lot of moral support but there are a lot of people in this country now, the country is totally bankrupt and we're spending trillions of dollars on these useful wars, the people will become demoralized because history shows that all empires end because they expand too far and they bankrupt the country just as the soviet system came down and that's what bin laden was hoping for. he also said that the dollars spent will bankrupt this country. and we are bankrupt and yet there is no hesitation to quit spending one cent overseas. we built embassies in baghdad, we built embassy in kabul, billion-dollar embassies, fortresses and the all necessary. nobody is really concerned. if people were concerned about the disastrous affect of debt on this country, we would change our foreign policy and we would be safer for it. we are not safer because of this

foreign policy. it's a policy of intervention that has been going on for a long time and it will eventually end. this war is an illegal war. this war is an immoral war. this war is an unconstitutional war. and the least you can say is, illegitimate. there's no real purpose in this. the taliban did not attack us on 9/11. do you know, after we went in to afghanistan, immediately the concerns were shifted to remaking the middle east. we went in to iraq, used this as a justification. it was nothing more than an excuse. most americans, the majority of americans, still believe that saddam hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. and i imagine most americans believe that the taliban had something to do with 9/11 and it's not true. we need to change our foreign policy and come back to our senses and defend this country

and not pretend to be the policemen of the world. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks time? mr. kucinich: could i ask, madam speaker, how much time is remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: certainly. just a moment. the gentleman from ohio has 68 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from california, mr. berman, has 36 minutes. and the gentlewoman from florida has 27 1/2 minutes. mr. kucinich: if it's -- ok, i'll yield. i'll yield mr. kennedy three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. kennedy, is recognized for -- i'm sorry, from rhode island, is recognized for three minutes. mr. kennedy: i thank the

gentleman, mr. kucinich. i want to say at the outset, while i'm speaking on behalf of the same resolution the gentleman before me spoke on behalf of, i couldn't disagree more, that our interests do lie in protecting our national security by being in afghanistan . my opposition is our strategy. my opposition is that somehow we're going to control the ground by maneuvering ourselves militarily to control the ground as if it's a nation state. i hear my colleagues talk about the flag of afghanistan. as if afghanistan is a country. in case anybody has bothered to look at it, it's a loose collection of 121 different sovereign tribes, none of them get along with each other, and it's a mountainous terrain of

rock and gravel and the notion that our soldiers are over there laying down their lives to secure ground, we ought to be asking the taliban and the terrorists, anybody who is organizing to strike in our country, i am for that. but i am not for organizing an organized military campaign where we're having to go in and take in these towns and subject our soldiers to unnecessary threats where we are putting our treasure and our lives and our men and women in uniform on the line unnecessarily. now someone, i can't believe i even heard this, said, oh, i can't go to a funeral and tell the parents of someone who just died that they lost their child in vein. somewhere i heard that during the vietnam war.

so what is it we got to do? we got to doubledown on a bad policy to protect the honor of those who have already died? i don't think so. there isn't a soldier in this country who's laid down their lives for our nation that isn't a hero. and no one in here disagrees with that. what is shameful is our policy that puts them in harm's way when they don't need to be. and make no mistake about it, this is not about national security, because if it's about national security it's about whether we put our treasure and our lives on the line in afghanistan or whether we put it in kuwait or whether we put it in the sudan or whether we put it in some other place in the world, all of which is where we need it. where we need it the most, that should be the question. because we don't have the resources to put it everywhere. so don't come and tell me our national security requires that

we have an afghanistan because that's not the only place we need it. the question is where our priorities should be and you take it from one place, you have to put it somewhere else. 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. kennedy: finally. if anyone wants to know where citizens is. there's two press people in this gallery. we're talking about eric massa 24/7 on the tv, we're talking about war and peace, $3 billion, 1,000 lives and no press, no press, you want to know why the american public is fit? they're fit because they're not seeing their congress do the work that they're sent to do. it's because the press, the press of the united states is not covering the most significant issue of national importance and that's the laying of lives down in the nation for the service of our country. it's despicable, the nationa>í"j

>> the house later rejected that resolution. five republicans and 62 democrats supported the measure. up next on c-span, a defence department briefing from iraq. followed by that, prime minister's questions were gordon brown is asked about the war in afghanistan. kathleen sebelius speaks before an industry group, supreme court chief justice john roberts talks at the university of alabama law school. on tomorrows "washington journal," we will talk to jason

altmire about health care, of reporter talks about john roberts, robert johnson will talk about the financial industry regulations, and we will look at the future nato. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> now what pentagon briefing on parliamentary elections in iraq. he also talks about the relationship between u.s. troops and the iraqi security forces. he speaks with reporters form a rack for 25 minutes -- from a rack for 25 minutes.

>> it is my privilege to introduce the general. he assumed his duties in january of this year, and this is his first opportunity to be with us in this format, and we appreciate you taking the time this evening to give us some perspective on what you have been doing. most recently, the most important of elections taking place there. i know you have a few words that you would like to set the context before we start taking questions, so let me turn it over to you. >> brian, thanks a lot. i would like to make a brief opening statement. first of all, thanks to members of the press for being here today. as brian said, i am the

commanding general of the center. as you know, the multinational division-bag down -- baghdad and west were brought together. that created the organization we know today as the division center. our team is built around the headquarters of germany, and the first brigade 82nd airborne out of anbar province. we have felt for the infantry attack division and the first grade third infantry which has organized, and the second brigade 10th mountain division. we haven't and aviation brigade. just as a point of reference, we arrived simultaneous with the first armored division. they've been on the ground for a number of months before we arrive. sunday's election was a historic

event. iraqis were protected superbly by the iraqi security forces and the iraqi people came out and voted in large numbers. and all are bridging in -- anbar, there were no bad problems. there were few incidents which produce casualties in a number of bombs, the iraqi security forces secure their population and provided a secure, credible election process. as a for our -- before i close i -- and take a few questions, the success did not just happen. the battle space is theirs. they set the conditions for the elections and through their hard work, if paid handsome dividends on sunday. the task did not begin on sunday, and since then they have

provided for security on a daily basis. we know that they have an important role to play to the future and we look for to continue to partner with them. with that, i'll take your questions. >> thank you, general. >> i'm with the associated press. as we await the election results, will it change the pace of u.s. with the role? -- with a drawl? the boilers at this point, we have been told about the president's announcement last year during his june speech that we would come down to 50,000. that is what we will believe occur. that is the planning process we move forward to move to that number. in the center, it will be smaller than it is today. some of the planning for that has already begun.

>> from now until september 1, what kind of operation are the u.s. military involvement? and if you could give us any concerns during this transition period from now until september 1? >> yes, if you give me an interesting question. what i would like to say it is to talk about how the partnering has changed. it is been reconfigured since the end of june, when based on the security agreement we moved out of the iraqi cities. it is a bit unique in baghdad. but what has effectively happened is that we have changed the partnering models that we have worked with the iraqi security forces, and that will continue beyond september.

during the surge, we had partnered units at the county level and even lower. at the brigade level at the buff now. -- and above now. with their grades in with their division headquarters, and with their operations centers, we exist above the divisional level. continue to provide support to the iraqis. but they are in charge. a case in point for the election period. even up to now, we have to provide iraq is a number of things. we provided aviation support with intelligence surveillance, and recognizance. we hope with some military work. we assist with scattered bands which help them scan vehicles coming into baghdad and other cities. we were partnered with them into combining associated training with them in every echelon.

it is taking a different shape them what you are my -- and you remember in 2008 and 2010. i expect that to continue until september. you've heard about the significant dated day before where he believes that to some degree, we are already in the process of transition to stability operations. we see what that will look like already. >> i am with associated press. a lot of troops in iraq doing the task that you outlined. how many troops there are actually not -- do not have that much to do? it seems like 92,000 troops are a lot to do the tasks that you outlined. are they there just in case something happens? the lawyers know, i would say not really.

the troops here in the center are pretty busy. you look at what occurred early in the election period, and now that province has 300 polling centers, and in baghdad, another 1500. part of all we did was partner with our iraqi brothers and help them work their way through their plan, which they developed in the election support. let me give you an example. at the baghdad operation center, which operates all the security, we have transition teams that work with the iraqi staff on a daily basis. i spend a fair amount of my time over there with the commander, talking with them in dealing with the issues that he brings up as he puts his security plan in place. we spend time with their counterparts, where we have

training teams staffed. and down to the iraqi division level, the iraqi army or federal police in baghdad, there are six of theim partner. we help separate and give a menu of things which enable them to prepare themselves for the election, and we were to have a common operating pictures between our headquarters in there. i see the same thing that the commander does. my intelligence teams provide me intelligence at the same time he gets intelligence from the huge debt that we've put together. that is at a higher level. that happened in the on our provinces well. a -- anbar province as well. we of shifted. we were out doing combat operations with them some cases

unilaterally, but in many cases in partner operations. now iraqis have the lead in combat operations. we're partnered with them in some cases but we're partner at staff level and at higher level, commander lovell, much more effectively than we were before. it enables us to work on command-and-control skills together. you may have a follow up. the lawyers know, i think you answered it. >> voice of america. do you have any of your troops actually involved in combat at this point? >> we work with the iraqis to help them trained a number of different elements. let me give you an example. many of these iraqi brigades have will recall commando elements. they are platoons that help them execute offensive operations. this is in addition to many of

the soldiers they have out on checkpoints, doing that sort of duty. so let's say of federal police unit goes out and executes a mission of this nature, to go get a bad guy, there will usually be a u.s. partner element that will move and operate with them. the answer is, yes, we partnered to that regard, but a person knocking on the door of the house is a racket. it is based on rules of evidence and to the iraqi system that they have brought forward with an article for warrant issued by an iraqi court. this change is the 30th of june with that part going into place. but we are partnered, but we are not the guys going through the door first, nor are we apprehending and iraq -- iraqi citizens. iraqi forces are doing that. it is a more genuine partnership then what you might remember.

>> has that been reflected in your casualty figures? >> yes, i think that you do make an interesting point. the number of u.s. casualty's has gone down. the number iraqi casualties has certainly gone down. we're seeing their part in operations increase significantly. that leads you to the point i made my comments about the iraqis not just tumbling onto our election security and sunday. there have been a lot of things of iraq is going into an area based on intelligent tips, there might be attache there. they will effectively put that operation to get it, they will issue the orders and instructions, and go and search the areas. when there might be a combined operation to go get a